Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

It's amazing how evolution can be considered scientific when there are so many credulity-straining stories told in its promotion. Speculations are asserted as facts without any plausible models, just piles of stories worthy of entertainment around a campfire on a cattle drive, but not much else. In addition to the speculations, facts are conveniently ignored. Someone may want to ask, "Are you actually listening to yourself, pilgrim?"

Image: NPS.gov

Proponents of evolution insist on an old earth, even when the evidence is against them. How can animal fat still be on stone tools that are supposedly half a million years old? Organic material has a way of disappearing in a short time; horse apples on the lone prairie don't last very long, and they're not exactly something desired by much more than bugs and bacteria.Evolutionary thinking has our ancestors being stupid brutes because they recently swung down from the trees and hadn't evolved much intelligence yet (again, despite evidence to the contrary). And they were content to stay primitive for long periods...not hardly. Again, do paleoanthropologists and others actually listen to their own stories? The truth is, there is no molecules-to-man evolution, and man was created as an intelligent being, and created rather recently.

Claimed to be half a million years old, stone tools found in Israel still contain traces of animal fat and vegetable matter.The two parts of this sentence seem incongruent: “Stone tools that are half a million years old have been unearthed in Israel — and they still have traces of elephant fat clinging to them.” Yet this is what Tia Ghose says on Live Science without blinking an eye. Would not bacteria have removed all organic material from the rocks in just decades? With all the water from rain drenching the site over 500,000 years, it seems inconceivable to claim that any organic material would remain on a rock, yet that is exactly what the science news are reporting, based on a paper in PLoS ONE.

Monday, March 30, 2015

For many years, proponents of goo-to-you evolution have been creating a false war between "science" and "faith". The truth is, there is no conflict between the two. There are Bible-believing scientists today, and there have been throughout the formation of scientific methods. The real problem is between worldviews."But Cowboy Bob, we use science, you use faith!"Not hardly. Science, and the "scientific method", is a philosophy about interpreting evidence. Historical science (such as creation and evolution) use scientific methods and interpret evidence according to presuppositions. A secularist sees a fossil and believes it's millions of years old, while a biblical creationist sees evidence of the global Genesis Flood, for example.

Unfortunately, people are only given one side of the story: evolution. Evidence for creation is dismissed out of hand, often times because people don't know that there's another (superior) way to interpret the evidence. Of course, when creation science ministries gain attention and prompt people to think for themselves and examine the evidence critically, Darwinoids circle the wagons to protect "science". That is, they pull the bait 'n' switch, saying that evolution is science, so they must protect it against those bad old "science deniers". Like I said before, I like science, and so does my heart.Some protectors of "science" (that is, evolution) go on the attack, saying that since biblical creationist are lying because we don't agree with their fundamentally flawed God-denying worldview. Absurd things like, "You are anti-science. Yes - you DO lie about the age of the universe, spreading false information and propaganda" are said, then they pretend that they're doing the world a favor by "telling the truth" based on their antitheistic worldviews. It's almost funny in a way, since many people of that ilk lack anywhere near the education that the scientists they are criticizing possess. By making such misrepresentations about creationists and assertions about us lying, they make themselves the liars! Amazingly, some are actually proud of their arrogance and bigotry. Then there are "Christians" who have no respect for biblical creationists, and insist on their "right" to disrespect us and say how we're evil "fundies" —

"Not all evolutionists are like that!"

Oh. I went away for a while. You are correct. There are intelligent people who have been indoctrinated into evolutionism that may want to find out our side of the story.
Creation science ministries want to not only equip Christians to defend
the faith in this area, but to inform those evolutionists.Also, it's ridiculous to believe that people who want to communicate the truth of God, who hates lying, will use lies and deception to get others to believe in God! Must be gnawing on peyote or something. Such attacks are not only showing ignorance of how science thrives (examination and challenge), but impugn the integrity of the people they don't like — all because they reject the materialistic worldview and support biblical creation.

What some people don't understand is that both creation and evolution involve faith, and use scientific methods with what is observed in the present to try to understand what happened in the past. Many of Darwin's Defenders will disunderstand what faith is, and misrepresent both faith and science.

What used to be a decent science magazine, National Geographic has become another propaganda arm of the Darwin Party. They are using bad logic and outright falsehoods to manipulate the emotions of people so that they will embrace evolutionism and reject creation science. It is indeed unfortunate that critical thinking seems to be in short supply, especially in educational systems.

National Geographic (NG) is a respected popular science magazine with millions of subscribers. So it is unfortunate when they use that platform to promote anti-creation propaganda under the guise of science. The cover of the March 2015 issue is “The War on Science”, and the featured article by science writer Joel Achenbach, “The age of disbelief”, intends to explain why so many people doubt the scientific establishment on a range of issues—from global warming to vaccines to the Apollo moon landings. And, of course, no ‘war on science’ article would be complete without a reference to creationists. But rather than shed light on these controversies, NG has only managed to spread more confusion.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

The general theory of evolution has been disingenuously (and fallaciously) equivocated with science for years now. But evolution is not "science". In fact, evolution fails the criteria for being a scientific theory! Get yourself to cogitating on this: evolution is not testable, repeatable, or observable (see the video at the bottom of this post for more). Oh, sure, proponents insist that evolution has been tested and observed, but that's from small samples and playing games with words (using the fallacy of equivocation by referring to "change" and "variation" as evolution). And nobody saw microbes evolving into all the life forms we see today.

I reckon that evolutionism is getting more desperate all the time. There is a considerable amount of fact-free storytelling, and when the data becomes inconvenient, they use the scientific method of Making Stuff Up™. Although the structure of the "theory" is wrong, evolution has indeed been falsified seven ways from sundown, but the faithful manage to avoid the truth that evolution is a failure, the evidence supports Creation instead. To see what I'm jawin' about, take a look at the examples at "Fudging Evolution to Avoid Falsification".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 27, 2015

One of the biggest burrs
under the saddles of evolutionary paleontologists is the Cambrian
explosion. According to their paradigm, fossils were made gradually,
showing evolution from simpler to more complex life forms, over millions
of years. The Cambrian layer has many fossilized life forms that are
fully developed, and evolutionists have struggled to explain this away.
By the way, fossils in the pre-Cambrian? Not so much. That makes things
worse for them.David Attenborough does
evolution documentaries, and he discussed a critter that supposedly was
an ancestor to modern backbones. As is typical in these kinds of
discussions, it is speculation without basis. In fact, what is found in
the Cambrian explosion is evidence of creation (there are no undisputed
transitional forms of something changing into something else), and also
supports the Genesis Flood — especially with those well-preserved soft
tissues that show sudden burial. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

The
evolutionary origin of vertebrates 525 million years ago is the subject
of a captivating video recently featured on Smithsonian.com. In this
lavishly illustrated five-minute clip, charismatic evolutionary
spokesman David Attenborough explains how a paper clip-sized Cambrian
creature called Myllokunmingia has revealed how and when life took its first successful step toward the development of a backbone.

To discover when the first sign of a backbone appeared, Sir David takes us to China’s Chengjiang Formation where Myllokunmingia—which
he says is “the earliest creature we know of that we can truly call a
vertebrate”—was found in a Lower Cambrian rock layer. China’s Chengjiang
Formation and Canada’s Burgess Shale are two famous sites revealing the
Cambrian explosion—the abrupt appearance of diverse animals deep in the
fossil record.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

It's generally acknowledged that Uncle Albert was a clever lad. The name of Einstein is associated with genius, even in sarcasm, such as, "Nice going there, Einstein!". In addition to the General and Special Theories of Relativity, many people thought he had a great deal of wisdom. He did not have godly wisdom, however, rejecting the gospel message. Einstein did have a kind of Deist view of God, despite the dishonest claims of atheists like Clinton Richard Dawkins. So, who did this smart feller see fit to look up to, and what was special about them?

There’s little doubt that the most famous scientist of the 20th century was Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Today his name is synonymous with ‘genius’. Most people today would recognize his most famous equation, E=mc2, (though many would be hard-pressed to explain what it actually means!). But even Einstein had his science heroes.So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientists for Einstein to have thought highly of them! And they were. Einstein had pictures of his three heroes of science on his study wall. They were Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Michael Faraday (1791–1867), and James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

There have been several reports that there may be water on moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the asteroid Ceres — and maybe some just up yonder on our own moon. With advances in space exploration, it turns out that our solar system is a busy place, what with volcanic eruptions, methane geysers and what not. With speculations of water, naturally come speculations of life evolving from whatever is out there.

Ganymede, Jupiter's largest moon, may have an underground ocean. Image: NASA / JPL

Of course, the various forms of water need to be investigated further, and there needs to be more involved, even for goo-to-you evolutionists, for life to happen. Also, evolution requires huge amounts of time, and the reports of water don't bother to address the problem of how water can last more than a few thousand years on a solar system alleged to be billions of years old. A young solar system is exactly what is expected by biblical creationists.You can read the information by clicking on "Water Worlds Tempt with Life, Not Youth".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

This bears repeating: despite the claims of Darwinists, science is an enemy of evolution, especially when it comes to genome studies. The concept of genome evolution gets lassoed and tied down because of "orphan genes". These things perplex evolutionary scientists because they are unique to certain organisms and giving them unique traits.

Pixabay / PollyDot

Honey bees are already frustrating to evolutionists since they have a complex social structure. The orphan genes provide them with traits not found in other bee species, including special means of communication, and they are found in various organs — again, unique to these bees. The orphan genes are of special interest to creation scientists, since they can help genetic research in the created kinds.

A key type of rogue genetic data called orphan genes has just been spectacularly reported in honey bees. Orphan genes conflict with ideas about genome evolution, and they are directly linked with the evolutionary enigma of phenotypic novelty, unique traits specific to a single type of creature.Many creatures possess similar sets of genes that produce proteins with similar biochemical functions. Common genetic code would be a predicted feature of purposefully engineered biological systems in creatures that share the same environment and have somewhat similar life requirements. In addition to these common genes, different kinds of organisms also have unique sets of coding sequences specific to that type of creature called orphan genes. In a review paper about orphan genes, the authors stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."

Monday, March 23, 2015

by Cowboy Bob SorensenWhen I was accepted to be on the review team for The War on Christmas, I was given a couple of other e-books as thank-you gifts. I was not asked to give a review at all, let alone, a favorable one, but I thought you should know how I obtained my copy of Tim Chaffey's In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus.Then I put it off. To be direct with you, I wasn't all that thrilled with another book giving a defense of the faith on this topic since there are so many others available, and many articles on apologetics sites. Still, the topic is important, so I carved out some time for it.Turns out that I was getting set to ride down the wrong trail. In Defense of Easter has a somewhat different approach in some respects than other books, and there is information on bad arguments against the resurrection that were not around before, plus some material that I had never heard of.This is not a cumbersome tome at 216 pages (softcover), and also available as an e-book (like mine). You can read it a little at a time or dive in. Section One is "The Case for the Resurrection", and has 5 chapters about evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, including infallible proofs and remarks from historians.Section Two is "Alternative Theories", chapters 6-17. These include some of the nonsense that is spread by misotheists on the Web, some of the more common excuses to disbelieve (such as the stolen body, wrong tomb, faked death, not really but mostly dead), and Chaffey also dispenses with some of the esoteric spiritual resurrection concepts.Chapters 18-25 comprise Section Three, "Other Relevant Questions". For me, Tim sets this book apart from other apologetics books in this section. Chapters include material on alleged contradictions, how the resurrection of Jesus was different from other accounts of people that he raised from the dead, how Genesis ties in with the resurrection, how the resurrection is a source of comfort, and whether or not Easter is a pagan holiday.

That last one about accusations of Easter being a pagan day was a bit of a disappointment for me because I wanted more information to corral that wild horse. Still, there is enough information to put the "You're a pagan" judgmental nonsense away, and he made some excellent points. Also, perhaps Tim was thinking that, since he works at Answers In Genesis (as well as being involved in Midwest Apologetics), AiG has done several articles to deal with the "pagan" accusations. If you want to see those and other articles, I assembled several at "Is Easter a Pagan Holiday, and Should Christians Celebrate It?" So, I reckon that my "complaint" on the lack of discussion is rather small after all.

Think about it. God the Son, the Creator of the universe took the form of a man. He died for your sins and mine, and defeated death with his bodily I recommend In Defense of Easter. It can be obtained from the publisher, Midwest Apologetics (but I did not see a link for the e-book there), Answers In Genesis (both softcover and e-book), and other sources.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, March 21, 2015

by Cowboy Bob SorensenIn a previous article, I discussed how people idolize scientists and the religion of Scientism is gaining popularity. Many people will blindly accept what "scientists say" because of their unfounded high view of science and scientists (that article is here). Regular readers may recall that my father was a pastor in a liberal church. I asked him why we did so many ritual things (which I disliked), and he said that people need a "religious experience". Although I still reject that for a church setting, I see truth in that in other areas. Scientism, atheism, and other worldviews tend to be sterile and clinical; even atheists are garnering a religious experience with their own churches.

Although many Darwinists and atheists hate this fact, evolution is a religion. It started way back yonder, long before Darwin plagiarized Erasmus Darwin and others, back to the Epicureans, and possibly older views. Charles Darwin didn't come up with evolution all by his lonesome, he made gave a religious view a veneer of science and popularized it. If someone dares to question evolution, show evidence against it, and poke fun at evolutionary high priests like Clinton Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Laurence Krauss, and even tinhorns that want to be famous, watch out for the stampede of the faithful, riding into town to shut you up. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that secularists were embracing New Age religious views, or even full-fledged Hinduism. This Scientism thing goes beyond evolutionism. Have you noticed the increasing popularity of science fiction, UFOs, Raelism, and the Jedi Religion? Science fiction fans have an almost religious fervor at conventions and such, space aliens bring a message of "hope" rooted in evolutionism, with Raelism and Jedi taking on a spirituality. Why is that, old son?I believe some of it is that desire for a religious experience. But another part of it is a desire for God. People know that God exists (Romans 1:20), but choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18, Psalm 53:1). These forms of religious experience vary from liberal Christians embracing Darwinism, militant atheopaths going on a secularist jihad, people enamored with science philosophies, or even people just seeking some kind of religion. But all of it is essentially rebellion against God our creator and the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. After all, we can't earn salvation, we have to humble ourselves and receive it God's way, not our way.Here is a broadcast/podcast that aired on March 19, 2015. I hope Christians will listen to it. Amy and Scott interview Warren Smith about how the New Age is gaining popularity and entering the church even more. It is free to listen to online or download, click here for the interview on "Stand Up for the Truth".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 20, 2015

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance. The obtained some amino acids, and Darwin's Cheerleaders were overjoyed that chemical evolution had a basis in their worldview. However, the experiment has long been discredited (they used a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment so they wouldn't be destroyed), and the "reducing atmosphere" concept of the early earth has long been abandoned.

Of course, this bit of historical science used assumptions, and they wanted to test their ideas to see if they worked. Scientists do that. However, even though the experiment is invalid, when creationists point out its many flaws (including that it argues against abiogenesis), evolutionists will circle the wagons to defend it. A newer attempt to bring the experiment back into respectability by using a computer simulation and saying that it's valid on the quantum level. Not hardly. The logical conclusion is that life originated by the hand of our Creator, but that is anathema to materialistic evolutionists.

This feedback answers Aleksey K. of Ukraine, who asked about revisitation of the iconic Miller Urey experiment. The media claimed that it could have produced many more amino acids than previously thought. This is followed by a box about the nature of Earth’s early oxidizing atmosphere, which falsifies one of the important premises behind the experiment.

According to evolutionary speculations, life is the product of time, chance, natural selection, and beneficial mutations — a whole wagon load of mutations. (Of course, "beneficial" mutations are debatable because a benefit here often causes a detriment there.) And "adding information"? Only if you use the term loosely, and "new" information comes from rearranged or even damaged. Evolutionists play word games. New cancer research shows that good mutations are not found, and that the DNA formerly called junk needs to be free of mutations or it can lead to disease — which supports Genesis.

How did nature supposedly transform a single-cell organism into all the varieties of land-walking animals in our world today? Textbook explanations invoke natural selection of beneficial mutations across unimaginable time, with a bit of help from “junk DNA” and heaps of serendipitous chance. Though it was not intended as a test of evolution, a new cancer research discovery jeopardizes these unfounded evolutionary assumptions.As body cells divide, they copy billions of DNA “letters” that encode cellular building and maintenance protocols, including codes that build new proteins. Despite networks of error-detecting and correcting molecular machines, a few copying mistakes called mutations always creep in. Scientists have known for some time that mutations have the potential to cause cancer when they occur in genes used for cell growth and division. However, scientists from The Institute of Cancer Research in London recently published new finds in Nature Communications showing that mutations in DNA found far away from these cell-growth genes can also help cause cancer.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

It seems that making space telescopes like the Hubble and Spitzer is not such a good idea for cosmologists and cosmogonists who want to believe that the Big Bang happened. Deep space discoveries are made, and the Big Bang "theory" keeps getting adjusted because it doesn't fit the observations and has little resemblance to the original idea. Sorta like putting new horses in the corral and letting other horses escape, then still claiming you have the same herd; what you have doesn't look the same as what you started with. The Big Bang has had numerous difficulties in the past (several are written up here), including the horizon and flatness problems. So, cosmologists come up with some notions to rescue it, including the faith-based "multiverse" or "inflation" concept. Now there are new problems to explain away.

"A1689-zD1 appears as a grayish-white smudge in the close-up view taken
with NICMOS[image at center, right], and as a whitish blob in the
Spitzer close-up view[image at bottom, right]." —NASA/STScI

A couple more problems for the Big Bang cropped up. One is a quasar in a black hole, the other is an extremely distant galaxy that contains dust particles. Neither one should exist according to secular theories of cosmic evolution. Looks like once again, biblical creation is the most logical answer.

A very distant galaxy shows evidence of much dust, while a quasar nearly the same distance contains the most massive black hole ever detected. In a big bang cosmology, we are viewing these two objects from a very early epoch in the universe. There is not enough time in the current understanding of cosmic evolution for either of these objects to exist. Hence, these observations present tremendous problems for the standard cosmology.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One of the most common complaints that Christian apologists have is that our critics rarely do their homework. Many cannot be bothered to do actual research, insisting that we're wrong without even reading (or in some cases, reading at but not understanding) the material. Research for the purpose of meaningful discussion? Naw, don't pay it no nevermind, just spout off with the hate and say you slapped down them st00pid dumb Xtians with "reason".

Atheists and anti-creationists are notorious for this kind of behavior, then they wonder why they get banned or have their comments moderated. In addition, these owlhoots complain about "censorship" when they can't say what they want, where they want, even though they don't understand what censorship really is. By the way, I've been the victim of what those people would call "censorship" myself. Comments have been deleted, a site that lists science-related materials refused to include this site, a remark I had made during one of my recent interviews had been edited out before the broadcast, and more. Did I go on a "poor me, you censors hate me" posting and letter-writing campaign? Not hardly.Here's a hint for people who want to spend time "debating" with people like this: Keep them on-topic — but be ready for personal attacks, dredged-up links "refuting" you, all kinds of side issues and the like. Unfortunately, some professing Christians indulge in this sort of behavior. I wrote "Hell, Creation and Side Issues", discussing how some people elevate their own pet doctrines to unhealthy levels and look down on people who disagree with them. One of my examples was annihilationism (Hell is not eternal), and some annihilationists attacked me personally. Ironically, they proved me right. (No, I'm not giving them publicity.) When focusing on a side issue so much, people get their theology and thinking out of whack. I know of one guy who was an apologist, and the last I knew, he was so wrapped up in contending with Christians about annihilationism that he dropped off the radar, no longer being effective in apologetics.

Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is a scholar and debater, and if you want to slap leather with him, you'd better have your intellectual guns in good working order. He was getting challenged on the topic of theonomy (dominion theologgy); there are different levels of this some are moderate, others are extreme). His critics were acting like atheists, evolutionists, and cultists, not doing their homework, resorting to cheap attacks, obsessing over their pet doctrines, and using sidewinder-level logic. Dr. White did a podcast/video, and he was not feeling nearly as playful as I've heard in the past. The first 27 minutes or so are dealing with the nonsense of certain theonomists, including how they don't do their reseach. You can listen to or watch that podcast here.So, I reckon that anti-creationists and atheists tend do use bad logic, personal attacks, and ignore research efforts more than other people, Christians do some of that, too. Is it just human nature? I don't know. But for creationists and other apologists, keep your opponent's feet to the fire (keep him or her on-topic, insist that they do their homework), and don't be worried about cutting them off when they become obstreperous.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 16, 2015

As we have seen here many times, the evolutionary worldview cannot account for morality. Someone was brutally murdered, and compassionate people react in horror. If evolution were true, there would be no point in that. There is no free will, we're simply controlled by our chemical impulses. Why should one sack of chemicals care about what happens to another sack of chemicals?When an anti-creationist cries, "Unfair! Censorship! You're a bunch of liars!", he's appealing to a transcendent morality. The same with the Darwinist who complains about murder, genocide and atrocities, as in both cases, they are tacitly admitting that their worldview cannot account for morality, it is not truly livable, and they cannot justify outrage — when they actually have it. The biblical worldview is the only one that is coherent and can account for morality, and these people are actually standing on our worldview.

Unfortunately, since evolutionary "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" thinking have taken such hold in society, there is actually very little attempt to deal with vicious ISIS killers, especially when they are committing murders of Christians. Evolution is a foundation for the religion of atheism, so it should not be that much of a surprise that some vile atheists actually applaud the deaths of Christians such as "Ian" in this comment; we "deserve" it (and no, this is not an isolated instance, I've seen it in other places). This is tolerance and rational thinking in action, right? Not hardly! This is corruption from sin.

What will it take to turn outrage into action, if genocide won’t? Destruction of antiquities? What would Darwin do?Never Again80 years after a decade of appeasement empowered genocidal dictators, it seems to be happening once more. Many countries, including America, have given half-hearted attention to genocidal actions by ISIS: mass beheadings, crucifixions, population displacements, enslavement, and more. The Islamic terrorists have also been on a Nazi-like campaign to gain territory, with only a tepid response. But now, they’ve really got the UN upset because of the videotaped smashing of antiquities in Iraq, and more recently, the bulldozing of the ancient city of Nimrud. Megan Gannon reports on Live Science that the destruction of antiquities has been declared a “war crime” by the UN. But what are they going to do to stop it? Other priceless antiquities throughout ISIS-controlled territories are now at immediate risk.Meanwhile, National Geographic (an organization one would think would be outraged the loss of priceless artifacts) published a surprisingly lukewarm description of the destruction, as if to say, “How sad, too bad.” (Compare with statement from the Oriental Institute.) No one seems willing to attribute the blame to Islamic ideology, although Nat Geo’s article by A. R. Williams does mention “Islamic militants” a couple of times. If there was ever a justification for the UN to intervene and put a stop atrocities, why not now?

Saturday, March 14, 2015

And now for something completely different: a slice of pie. No, wait. I meant the value of pi, the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet that is so essential in geometry, and to critics of the Bible. Looking at the common target, 1 Kings 7:23-26 KJV, some people claim that God's written Word has a serious mathematical error. One explanation is that the writer was rounding off the number, which was a common practice. In fact, it still is today, since the actual decimal value of pi never ends. People who want precision without obsession may use 3.14159265359, which is rounded off. The best I could do for this post was 9:27 AM, so it appears in the USA on 3-14-15, 9:17 Eastern Time. In math class, we used the most common short form for pi, 3.14. We'd plug it in to get the area of a circle when the radius was known, π * r2. Pi r squared. Cornbread are round.However, there is a better explanation about the seeming error in 1 Kings than saying the author was rounding it off. Although a possibility, it kind of sounds like an excuse. Pay it no never mind, there's a better explanation.

Critics and skeptics often claim that the Bible is in error because it says that the value of pi is 3 rather than 3.14159… Many Christians have been stumped by this claim which is based off a pair of passages found in 1 Kings 7: 23 – 26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2 – 5. These passages describe the construction and specifications of the Bronze Sea in the temple.

1 Kings 7: 23 – 26 states:
And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.Below its brim were ornamental buds encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The ornamental buds were cast in two rows when it was cast. It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained two thousand baths.

Since the circumference of any circle can be found by multiplying its diameter by pi, the sea’s circumference should be 31.4 cubits. The Bible says “a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.” Is this a verifiable error in the Bible as so many critics claim? Not at all. Once again, careful examination verifies the biblical account and the critic is left with egg on his face.

Friday, March 13, 2015

The creation-evolution controversy has been kicking up dust like a cavalry charge out on the plains. There's a great deal of noise, and all the dust makes it hard to see what's really going on. Atheists and anti-creationists use the confusion to try to sway people to their way of thinking. Much of this involves manipulation of emotions with name calling (labeling), blatant misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about what creationists actually believe and teach, and presenting bad evolutionary "science" as facts. The whole thing has been intensifying, which can be seen after the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on February 4, 2014, where Nye used bad science, dreadful logic, and sneaky debate tactics — much to the delight of his adoring fans.

The origins controversy is not restricted to academic interests. There are people who will insist that their leftist, materialist worldview is the only one that is rational, and if someone is running for public office who dares to deny evolution, s/he must be a fool. Most portrayals of Christians and creationists in the media are extremely negative, so that material is used to influence people. Just keep your eyes open, you'll see that someone's view of origins somehow becomes all-important. Yet, this view has no bearing on someone's ability to do science, use or build technology, function in public office, or go about daily life. What many people don't realize is that atheistic and evolutionary worldviews make science impossible; they are self-refuting and inadvertently affirm the biblical worldview, which makes sense of the necessary preconditions of human experience. They're standing on our rational worldview because theirs is incoherent!The issues are not about evidence. Rather, they are about worldviews. Facts are facts, and evidence does not "speak for itself" (fallacy of reification), evidence must be interpreted. One of the most common fallacies to watch for is equivocation. For instance, evolution is put forth as science, and then biblical creationists are accused of being anti-science. Also, there's an article entitled, "The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science". For science, not evolution. Sneaky, huh? Hey, ever notice how Bill Nye and his fans do not promote the video of the debate, which still can be watched for free? You'd think that if he won as handily as his fans claim, Nye would be promoting it every chance he can. Not hardly.What follows are four links (yes, four, not including the link above) from Answers In Genesis on this theme. They mention AiG specifically, but much of the information is applicable to the tactics of anti-creationists in general. Meanwhile, we put forward this information to help people discern how they are being tricked, manipulated and even lied to. Do you want to find out what creationists actually believe and teach? Well, don't be going to atheist and evolutionist sites, for crying out loud! Go to the sources. Here are the links to the articles, and if you don't read them all, I hope you'll at least read the first two:

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

As we saw earlier, the human heart is a marvel of design — after we're born. But what happens back yonder, before birth? The unborn child is in a womb water world, and not breathing, but still receiving oxygen. The heart and lungs are developing in a fascinating and optimal manner. When the child is actually born, there are some reversals, and systems are in place for breathing air and doing blood circulation in the manner we're accustomed to. To believe that all this is the product of Darwinism takes a huge amount of faith.

In 1967 Dr. Christiaan Barnard performed the first heart transplant. Until that time, if someone’s heart was taken out, they died. People were astounded to learn that not only was a man’s heart removed, but a non-beating donor heart put in, restarted, and he lived. Years of design efforts and testing resulted in a sophisticated invention that circulated blood and functioned as patients’ lungs to bring them oxygen—the all-important “heart-lung” machine.No doubt in the same hospital in 1967 was a brand-new mother. Her baby had just made a similar transition of survival on an exceedingly better “lung machine,” but no reporters covered it. Although the first event was a great feat of human engineering, the second has never been explained by any natural process.Childbirth is so common it is easy to overlook the fact that a baby thrives in a total water world for nine months—a world that is utterly impossible for any person to live in immediately after their very first breath. That feat is accomplished by the baby possessing—only in the womb—blood vessels with a different arrangement and structure from an adult’s.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

One of the staples of presenting molecules-to-man evolution is flawed logic. For example, how do they know the age of a fossil? Because of the layer it was found in. How do they know the age of the rock layers? Because of the fossils they contain. The viciously circular reasoning is a dizzying as just-paid cowboys dancing at a hootenanny.

Based on their presuppositions that Darwin was right and that the fossils in the geologic column are both ancient and in an orderly progression, a study of marine organisms presumes to portray evolution. In this case, evolution caused creatures to grow larger, therefore, evolution is true. However, the study was heavily biased and used selective citing, and there were no signs of change of something evolving into something else. Worse for them, the biblical creationist model of the Genesis Flood explains the fossils and the geologic column far better than uniformitarianism.

Do animals evolve to become bigger and bigger over time? The largest fossilized animal in the Cambrian explosion was the trilobite, dated at 542 million years and topping out at about a foot-and-a-half in length. Can the evolutionary advantages of being bigger explain how the world’s largest animal—the blue whale—evolved to be 100,000 times larger than the largest trilobite? Stanford University evolutionary scientists answer “yes” to both of these questions, at least for marine animals.Stanford paleobiologist Jonathan Payne and colleagues base their conclusions on a statistical survey of the body sizes of over 17,000 kinds of animals. His team reports that the average size of marine animals increased more than 150-fold over the past 542 million years. Most of the size increase, statistically speaking, was due to an increase in the maximum size of fossils in each layer ascending from the Cambrian through the Pleistocene strata.1 In other words, among the marine animals surveyed, the largest animals in each fossil layer were larger than the largest in the layers below. If the fossil layers actually did represent an evolutionary timeline, then this might suggest that the record-breaking sizes marine animals could achieve got larger and larger over millions of years. (As we will point out below, the layers do not mark millions of years of elapsed time, and there is another explanation for the way these fossils stack up!)

Monday, March 9, 2015

Something I have said many times (I think it's my variation on material by Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Jason Lisle) is that for every offered evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device (excuse). Biblical creationists offer evidence for creation, refuting evolution, supporting the Genesis Flood, and more, and goo-to-you evolutionists dance the Darwin Disco around it all. Some of their excuses are both incredible and amusing

Image credit: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Creationists present evidence that certain dinosaur tracks are the result of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionary paleontologists keep their paradigm in the corral by ignoring scientific evidence for the Flood and making excuses. (Gotta avoid the young earth evidence that kills evolution, you know.) It appears that some even believe in some kind of magic. Oh, boy.

Secular geologists claim that unique conditions prevailed when trackways were made by tetrapods in Triassic strata. Is this special pleading?A press release from UC Riverside starts with a question: “How Were Fossil Tracks Made by Early Triassic Swimming Reptiles So Well Preserved?” Their hypothesis was published in Geology: “Swimming reptiles make their mark in the Early Triassic: Delayed ecologic recovery increased the preservation potential of vertebrate swim tracks.” The hypothesis reverberated as delivered truth on Science Daily and Live Science.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Unlike operational science that we use every day, spores-to-special-agents evolution is forensic (historical) science. Crime scene investigation attempts to reconstruct the past by finding evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on so they can have present it in court. Evolution speculates about the distant past with no witnesses and very little evidence. For that matter, creation science is also forensic in nature, but has the foundation in the Bible, not in naturalism like most evolutionists use.

Image Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Peer review is a process where papers are submitted and, like the name says, reviewed by peers. Creationists have peer review along with their secular counterparts. However, secular peer review is loaded problems, including recalled papers, bias, bad science, and even fraud. The biggest problem seems to be that secular peer review is driven by agendas. An ostensibly good process can put a burr under everyone's saddle when human avarice gets involved. The following article shows a different example, but still pertinent, to problems with peer review.

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a house stood in ruins. What destroyed it? Did Sandy “total” it, or was it structurally defective well before the storm struck? Surely forensic science can help answer such questions, since it is supposed to be an objective process that seeks out and finds the truth about past events—and specifically cause-and-effect events. But even forensic science can be frustrated when selective biases or subjective agendas corrupt the analysis of the facts.Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane in U.S. history, wreaked havoc in October 2012. Scores suffered the complete destruction of their homes, and hundreds of others filed flood insurance claims.